[linux-elitists] Freeing parts of Unix?

Aaron Sherman ajs@ajs.com
Fri Jun 15 12:40:50 PDT 2001


On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 05:52:18PM +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> 
> > No matter what, the end-result of all of this debate and research is
> > going to be better free/open source software, and that I'll take any
> > day.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Open Source community doesn't really understand
> hard-realtime concurrency on fine-grain (deeply embedded-like) hardware.
> The canonical target is a fat *nix box, or a cluster of them, at best.

Ok, at this point I disagree with you on the basis that a) the MIT
software that has been discussed here was open source as was Cygnus'
(now Red Hat) embedded OS.

Both of these are often held up as good examples of state-of-the-art,
so if you want to bash the OSS take on real-time, you'll have to shoot 
down those two examples for me with concrete statements.

The rest of your reply was very difficult to follow in the context of
my message (which you quote often, but I'm not sure you read).

I'm not trying to flame you, here, just point out that your real-time
embedded systems comments are interesting, but you're responding to a
comment that I made about general-purpose computing. If you and I had
been carrying on a conversation about real-time embedded computing, I
would have been happy to tailor my comments appropriately.

But, I will argue quite firmly that my statements hold in the general
case, and that the "right" solutions to your problems are often not
appropriate for general-purpose computing.

> > one offers more options to your developers?
> 
> Developers need to start getting really good at parallel debugging really
> soon.

This is a total non-sequitur. How did you think that that statement
followed mine?

Incidentally, I've heard variants on this statement for 12 years now,
and so far, no future is in sight where the average developer will
stoop to worrying about parallel debugging (though I had to do it with 
gdb in '91, and let me tell you, that was no fun ;)

> > I would think the library approach would be harder to get safe
> > and correct, but a bit more of a win for developers in the long run.
> >
> > Then again, UNIX would likely not be the best model for such a
> > system. You'd probably want to make it more VMS-like, to get the
> > permissions per-installed-file and granular permissions concepts.
> 
> I dunno what you're smoking, but I would like to have a bowl of some.

Somehow, I thought that we were having a discussion (not even
necessarily a debate) about the useful bits of existing UNIX(tm)
source code. Random, and unexplained ad hominems are severely out of
place in such a context.

The statement you replying to contained the following concepts:

1. not UNIX-like
2. VMS-like
3. per-installed-file permissions needed
4. granular permissions needed

Which of these did you disagree with? Or, did you have some more
abstract problem with my statement (spelling, perhaps)?

-- 
Aaron Sherman		
ajs@ajs.com		finger ajskey@b5.ajs.com for GPG info. Fingerprint:
www.ajs.com/~ajs	6DC1 F67A B9FB 2FBA D04C  619E FC35 5713 2676 CEAF
	"I want a drug store in The Twilight Zone." -Shriekback



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list